On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:06:01 -0300 Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Any explanation why (old.base_gfn != new.base_gfn) case can be > > omitted? > > (old.base_gfn != new.base_gfn) check covers the cases > > 1. old.base_gfn = 0, new.base_gfn = !0 (slot creation) > > and > > x != 0, y != 0, x != y. > 2. old.base_gfn = x, new.base_gfn = y (gpa base change) > > Patch 2 covers case 2, so its only necessary to cover case > 1 here. > > Makes sense? Yes. But didn't you change the flush in the if block modified by patch 2 to kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot()? Although current implementation flushes everything, this may trigger problem when we change it. Takuya -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
